WASHINGTON, Jan 18, 2006 (PG) - The US Army said Wednesday it has raised its maximum enlistment age from 35 to 40 years old and is doubling signing up bonuses to a high of 40,000 dollars.

The measures are the latest in a series of steps the army has taken over the past year to offset a slump in recruiting as it faces ongoing campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The army failed to hit its recruiting goal of 80,000 new recruits in fiscal 2005. Recruiting figures have since improved but the the war in Iraq has made it difficult to meet the demand for fresh soldiers.

Army Secretary Francis Harvey, however, denied charges that the army is a "broken force," telling reporters it has met its recruiting goals in the last seven months with the help of bonuses and other incentives.

But he acknowledged that recruiting remains "a month-to-month thing".

"As I said, the rest of the year looks promising. But we're certainly not going to sit on our laurels," he said.

Raising the maximum age for enlistments "expands the recruiting pool, provides motivated individuals an opportunity to serve, and strengthens the readiness of army units," the army said in a statement.

The army is raising the maximum cash enlistment bonuses to 40,000 dollars for the active duty army, and 20,000 dollars for the army reserve, doubling the current maximums.

Older recruits are entitled to the same signing bonuses as younger ones, the army said.

"Experience has shown that older recruits who can meet the physical demands of military service generally make excellent soldiers based on their maturity, motivation, loyalty, and patriotism," the army said.

What do y'all think about this? Is this an act of desperation on our part?
If the age limit continues to rise, I'll soon be able to reenlist!

If you enjoyed reading about "US Army Raises Enlistment Age" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

Biker

January 19, 2006, 08:39 PM

This is getting sad. Ah, but there is Iran to consider...:uhoh:
Biker

MCgunner

January 19, 2006, 09:23 PM

I'm SOL unless they raise it to 55 or something.:D Shesh, I don't know if I could have handled basic when I was 40. I wasn't totally gone physically, but I was getting there. But, then, crashing race bikes at 100+ mph will do that to you.:rolleyes: My right shoulder is totally messed up. I'd blow myself up trying to chunk a grenade. :scrutiny: I'll never play soft ball, put it that way.

bg

January 19, 2006, 10:26 PM

I'm SOL unless they raise it to 55 or something.:D Shesh, I don't know if I could have handled basic when I was 40. I wasn't totally gone physically, but I was getting there. But, then, crashing race bikes at 100+ mph will do that to you.:rolleyes: My right shoulder is totally messed up. I'd blow myself up trying to chunk a grenade. :scrutiny: I'll never play soft ball, put it that way.
I'm up close to you too. I know I'd not make it in Basic now.
It was't all that much fun back in 73, but it was one of the
best things that happened to me. I guess the Army could
always use us old farts for IED probes before the youngin's
go in if need be. J/K, but I've heard in other times enemy
caught were set out to "find" mines. I don't know.

I DO know this: Bless our troops !

Dave Markowitz

January 19, 2006, 10:56 PM

Eeesh. Next thing we'll have the US Army Volksturm. :uhoh:

bogie

January 19, 2006, 11:30 PM

I can shoot, and chunk grenades. It's the "run away" part that I have problems with...

Dang, but the knees really were turned on today...

Reddog1

January 19, 2006, 11:49 PM

Mayby I should not be writting this because I'm 65 and so called over the hill.
BUT, I can still pop a bullseye at a 100 yds and plus. And remember our
forefathers were not all 18 to 35 yrs old. This country got is freedom by the
want and desire of men and women of all ages. No one told them they were to old and not needed. No , I could not take basic at my age, and ,yes the younger could and would out do me. BUT, leave me with my M14, and I and
many like me, would show this world that, YES, FREEDOM STILL RINGS....
may OUR HIGHER POWER grant us the will to go on and protect our way of life. Some in our goverment don't remember us and what we did. G*d help
them.:banghead:

PS, I, for one am tired of being surplus! :neener: :cuss: :fire:

White Horseradish

January 19, 2006, 11:55 PM

Eeesh. Next thing we'll have the US Army Volksturm. :uhoh:

Or ADF. But if we did that, we'd have to pull it inside our borders...

Hmm...

Lobotomy Boy

January 20, 2006, 12:07 AM

I'm still a few years too old for the cut. Besides, like McGunner, I too effed myself up crashing racebikes at 100+ (way over 100+: I went down in Brainerd's Turn One). Except for the arthritis, I'm in pretty good shape--I can ride a bike 50+ miles, and I can hike all day, day after day, but I can't run 10 feet, which would be a problem.

I can shoot pretty well, though. I'd probably make a better insurgent than a soldier.

Biker

January 20, 2006, 12:42 AM

I ride a 1949 Harley-kick start only- with high compression pistons, bored, stroked and cammed, so my right leg is probably better than anyone else's right leg now serving active duty - unless they can kick start a Bradley.
And - don't ask me how I know - I'm still pretty damned good at low-crawling.
Biker

Lobotomy Boy

January 20, 2006, 12:47 AM

Kick starters are a thing of my past--I shattered my tallar dome when I crashed at Brainerd. One backfire and I'd be looking at having what's left of my right foot amputated.

If you're interested, I've written a road test of a Victory Hammer in the latest issue of V-Twin magazine. Nice bike.

Biker

January 20, 2006, 12:50 AM

I'll check that bad boy out, Bro.:)
Biker

wingman

January 20, 2006, 12:53 AM

It would seem our only choice at this time is draft illegal's, as someone
said they will do the work American don't want.:rolleyes:

PCGS65

January 20, 2006, 01:12 AM

It would seem our only choice at this time is draft illegal's, as someone
said they will do the work American don't want.:rolleyes:
+1 Good point

tulsamal

January 20, 2006, 02:35 AM

It's important to realize the new age is for the active Army. I'm 44 and the local Army National Guard unit has tried to get me to sign up several times in the last couple of years. I have 8 years service now (3.5 Active Army, 4.5 USAR). It was explained to me that you can enlist in the Guard as prior service if you could have 20 years of service by age 65. Something like that. So I could still do it if I wanted to do so. It WOULD be interesting to try out the only Army branch I have no experience with! I have thought about it.

I told them I was fat and out of shape and they said it didn't matter.:eek:

Gregg

palerider1

January 20, 2006, 03:02 AM

i went to join the national guard at 37 and they said i was too old, then they moved the age to 39, but i am 41 now,,,,,,,,,ohh well guess it wasnt in the cards. they should have something for us older guys and gals relating to homeland security reserves or something.........where we can serve under the military in our community. whats everyone els think about that??????

Alex45ACP

January 20, 2006, 03:17 AM

It would seem our only choice at this time is draft illegal's, as someone
said they will do the work American don't want.:rolleyes:

Or we could start focusing on National Defense rather than International Offense. But that makes too much sense.

fjolnirsson

January 20, 2006, 04:11 AM

Just a thought here. There's a reason recruiters tend to chase the high school kids, aside from young boys in need of a career. Youngsters tend to have more, umm, "pliability", a certain tendency to obey orders given by authority. Lots of folks who've already been out in the world, taking care of homes and families are gonna be tough nuts to crack in Basic. How much extra time is it gonna take to try and remold someone who's been his own boss for 20+ years? I'm sure they'll figure it out, but still....

beerslurpy

January 20, 2006, 04:27 AM

Meh, let me know when the US govt trusts its own citizens to bear military arms and make their own life decisions and I will let you know when I am ready to volunteer my services to the empire. I will even bring my own weapons. But first, show me a republic worth fighting for, and a threat worth fighting against. Why should I take orders from my government when they wont take orders from the Constitution?

Show me a real threat to the nation rather than this terorist puppet theater and I'll show you ten million americans signing up to bear arms. Sure, we are doing a great job in iraq, but what are we doing there in the first place? I think the average person on the street doesnt give a rats ass about iraqis or iraq. What will this do to recruitment rates?

I think everyone knows that the war in iraq is making military service a high risk, low reward situation. Plus, all the wonderful stories about stop-lossing are really causing people to think long and hard about whether they want in for as long as the army needs them. If youre unsure, joining up could make your life suck.

A friend of mine joined the AF last year to become a chopper pilot. He was over 30 and they stretched the age limit to make room for him. Have a few other friends and friends of friends who are in the sandbox. The younger ones seem to be ok with it, but anyone who has a family seems to be less than thrilled about it.

Basura Blanca

January 20, 2006, 04:51 AM

Lots of folks who've already been out in the world, taking care of homes and families are gonna be tough nuts to crack in Basic. How much extra time is it gonna take to try and remold someone who's been his own boss for 20+ years? I'm sure they'll figure it out, but still....

According to the article, the army disagrees:

"Experience has shown that older recruits who can meet the physical demands of military service generally make excellent soldiers based on their maturity, motivation, loyalty, and patriotism," the army said.

Apparently young people lack motivation, loyalty and patriotism too.

Changing the the army's age requirements on the voluntary end is one thing and it's not surprising to me considering the charges of the recent past (e.g. recruiters "bending" recruitment rules to fill enlistment needs). The real indicator of the depth of the doo-doo will be when Selective Service modifies its age requirement window.

beerslurpy

January 20, 2006, 04:54 AM

I dont have any kids. If I say that I'm gay, will they let me stay home from the war in Iran/China/North Korea?

question 2: will I actually have to prove gayness or can I just pretend lol reverse closet

chaim

January 20, 2006, 05:25 AM

i went to join the national guard at 37 and they said i was too old, then they moved the age to 39, but i am 41 now,,,,,,,,,ohh well guess it wasnt in the cards. they should have something for us older guys and gals relating to homeland security reserves or something.........where we can serve under the military in our community. whats everyone els think about that??????

Palerider, there are similar options to what you describe.

Many states have State Guards (known under several names- State Guard or Defense Force for instance). The specifics may vary from state to state but they are primarily for civil defense and a backup for the National Guard if much of the Guard is on Federal service. They are voluntary (i.e. unpaid) military (sort of) organizations under the authority of the various states.

NY does have a state guard BTW- http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/nyg/nyg.html

There is the Civil Air Patrol. For adult members there does not seem to be an upper age limit. They do disaster relief, search and rescue, and other civil defense type missions as an auxiliary to the USAF. http://www.cap.gov/

If you are interested in boating the Coast Guard Auxiliary might be for you. http://nws.cgaux.org/index.html

Lancel

January 20, 2006, 05:45 AM

But then I'm biased.

Graduated Basic at age 32.
Graduated Air Assault School at age 51.
Finally retired at age 53 1/2.

If you're interested, I've written a road test of a Victory Hammer in the latest issue of V-Twin magazine. Nice bike. No disrespect to Harley, but it sure is nice to see another American manufacturer giving them some competition, (As opposed to ExHen v2.0 and Indian v2.0). And those Vegas-family bikes sure look sweet.

Lobotomy Boy

January 20, 2006, 10:18 AM

Show me a real threat to the nation rather than this terorist puppet theater and I'll show you ten million americans signing up to bear arms.

I'm with you there. In the event of a serious attack on the U.S. and if I was needed and wanted by the military, I'd load up on ibuprofin, lie about my gimpy foot, and fake it long enough to get in. I supported the war in Afghanistan, and if called up I would have served there. Iraq, on the other hand, seemed like an ill-conceived disaster waiting to happen from the fall of 2002 on.

Lobotomy Boy

January 20, 2006, 10:26 AM

No disrespect to Harley, but it sure is nice to see another American manufacturer giving them some competition, (As opposed to ExHen v2.0 and Indian v2.0). And those Vegas-family bikes sure look sweet.

I tested all the Victories, ExHens, and Indians for various MC magazines (mostly Motorcyclist), and the new Vegas-based Victory models are the first that can truly compete with Harley. I've ridden bikes built by chopper builders from Discovery channel television shows that are much more refined than the Indians with Harley-clone engines (they were some of the worst motorcycles I've ridden since the bad old days of AMF Harleys). The ExHens were really pretty good bikes to ride, but their reliability was dismal. The early Victories weren't much better, and they looked like butt smells. The Vegas-based bikes, especially with the new 100/6 powertrain, are some of the best bikes on the market. I just wrote a new book on the history of muscle cars, (Muscle: America's Legendary Performance Cars), available in late March, and if you all go out and buy lots of copies I should be able to afford a new bike this year. I will be shopping either a Harley or a Victory. This is the first time in my riding life that the best choices have been between two American manufacturers.

Biker

January 20, 2006, 10:37 AM

Gotta love competition. It's good for everybody. Go U.S.A!
Biker:)

Ezekiel

January 20, 2006, 11:25 AM

But then I'm biased.

Graduated Basic at age 32.
Graduated Air Assault School at age 51.
Finally retired at age 53 1/2.

"Jump school at 51?" Damn. I am seriously impressed: at both your desire and accomplishment. I just turned 34 and I don't think I could complete Basic! :(

wingman

January 20, 2006, 11:38 AM

Not to start a "board war" however we need the draft if in coming years
this country wants to remain free. A two year service requirement would give
some basic skills and give a force that could be trained in short time
when needed. I would be happy to hold the door open to Canada/Mexico
for anyone not wanting to be drafted. Overall it's too crowded anyway.;)

stevelyn

January 20, 2006, 11:44 AM

With the Army raising the enlistment age, it would appear that all is not as rosey on the recruiment goals front as we've been led to believe.:scrutiny:

roo_ster

January 20, 2006, 12:13 PM

Just a thought here. There's a reason recruiters tend to chase the high school kids, aside from young boys in need of a career. Youngsters tend to have more, umm, "pliability", a certain tendency to obey orders given by authority. Lots of folks who've already been out in the world, taking care of homes and families are gonna be tough nuts to crack in Basic. How much extra time is it gonna take to try and remold someone who's been his own boss for 20+ years? I'm sure they'll figure it out, but still....
I'm not sure I'd buy that particular pig in a poke.

I think that the young 'uns are the best targets/candidates for recruiters because most are:
1. Healthy & resilient
2. Unencumbered by spouses, children, real estate, etc.

From my experience, yes, the young 'uns right out of high school lack experience. A lot of them also lack discipline, maturity, motivation, and direction, all of which drill instructors work mightliy to instill. Nowadays, a whole lot also have an irrational anti-authoritarian mindset that sees any/all authority as illegitamate.

It is not about being a "tough nut to crack in Basic." It is about instilling discipline, maturity, motivation, martial spirit, morality, and such to those who may lack one or more of the aforementioned traits. If you go to Basic with most or all of those traits, Basic is not a particularly difficult or wrenching experience. It is more of just another challenge to slog through. BTDT. If you go to Basic without them, you will have a bit more trouble and growing up to do...and a short time to do it.

Older recruits with experience usually are inducted at a higher rank than a recent high school graduate, E-2 to E-4, vs E-1. This is to indicate that the service understands that that particular recruit brings more to the table.

When I went through Basic, I wasn't the oldest, but was definitely in the older half. Strangely, none of us "codgers" quit or were found unsuitable for service. We also had fewer problems that required "counseling" and were less likely to freak when under stress. Imagine that.

TABING

January 20, 2006, 12:27 PM

"Old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill."

I'm over the 40 limit, but couldn't we do rear echelon jobs, freeing up younger guys to do more frontline operations?

TrapperReady

January 20, 2006, 12:52 PM

"Jump school at 51?"

Air Assault School is not "jump school". Air Assault deals with helicopters, and when you leave the aircraft, you remain attached until you hit the ground (unless something goes wrong). ;) :)

Alex45ACP

January 20, 2006, 02:00 PM

Not to start a "board war" however we need the draft if in coming years this country wants to remain free.

:scrutiny:

Sounds like an oxymoron to me. A draft is when you're forced into battle at gunpoint. Another word for being forced to do something at gunpoint is slavery, and it is incompatible with freedom.

Deadman

January 20, 2006, 05:47 PM

I'm SOL unless they raise it to 55 or something

The Australian Army has had an enlistment increase from 35 to 55 years of age for a while now...

Biker

January 20, 2006, 06:02 PM

The Australian Army has had an enlistment increase from 35 to 55 years of age for a while now...
Whoa!!! OD green walkers??? Geritol in the MREs? CAMMY Depends? Viagra for the weekend Furlough?

:evil:

Biker

JMusic

January 20, 2006, 10:58 PM

A friend of mine recently stated they should draft all the old guys and send them to Iraq. His theory is why waste the youth of this country. You lose an old guy one less social security check to send and so forth. He also said it couldn't be any worse than a week in Sturgiss! He may have a point, its all I can do to stay 5 days in Daytona for bike week.:)
Jim

Phyphor

January 20, 2006, 11:03 PM

I ride a 1949 Harley-kick start only- with high compression pistons, bored, stroked and cammed, so my right leg is probably better than anyone else's right leg now serving active duty - unless they can kick start a Bradley.
And - don't ask me how I know - I'm still pretty damned good at low-crawling.
Biker

What, are you planning to punt the mullahs? :neener:

Working Man

January 20, 2006, 11:32 PM

I ride a 1949 Harley-kick start only- with high compression pistons, bored, stroked and cammed, so my right leg is probably better than anyone else's right leg now serving active duty - unless they can kick start a Bradley.
And - don't ask me how I know - I'm still pretty damned good at low-crawling.
Biker

I wasn't a big fan of kicking over my 79 KZ.... snapped me in the shin now and
again (I had a bad habit of using the ball-toe crease of my foot when in a hurry).

Do you find yourself walking in circles with a beefed up leg like that? :evil:

I think having a little more tempered blood out there is a good thing. If they
find the right people they could have a good mentoring type set up. War is
more than knowing how and who to shoot... it's the little things that make
the difference.

beerslurpy

January 20, 2006, 11:34 PM

Older guys are better when they volunteer because they go into it knowing what to expect. I can tell you that as a guy about to turn 30 (next monday) I am a lot more determined about law school than I would have been at 18 or 21. Why? Because I know myself and I know what I am getting into and I know the match is good. Same with 30+ year olds who sign up for military duty. They know what it is about and they know it is what they want.

Now try to conscript a 30 year old and that determination works in the opposite direction. A decade of self determination and a hard work have given him a lot of things to live for and he is accustomed to living his life as he sees fit. He is going to be the guy saluting you for the snipers and trying extra hard to avoid medals so he can get home alive. Imagine the average vietnam draftee with an extra 12 years of life experience under his belt.

High school type recruiting is predicated on the innocence and idealism of teenagers. The type of things a teenager will beleive will not work on a 30 year old. An older man will walk through the recruiting door himself if he is a good candidate.

Biker

January 20, 2006, 11:42 PM

You may have nailed it. I always figured that I walked in a wide circle because one of 'the twins' was a bit more developed than the other.:evil:
Biker

CAnnoneer

January 20, 2006, 11:54 PM

Methinks the way things are going with the civilian grofazen in WashDC, US Volksturm may be only a matter of time... The Nazis drafted 14-65, IIRC. Let's see where the neocons drag us.

Now try to conscript a 30 year old ... He is going to be the guy saluting you for the snipers and trying extra hard to avoid medals so he can get home alive...

ROTFLMAO :D

My guess would be a lot of the grofazen will go down with 8mm lead poisoning, if it comes to Volksturm. Americans are not known to goosestep very well...

Working Man

January 21, 2006, 08:28 AM

You may have nailed it. I always figured that I walked in a wide circle because one of 'the twins' was a bit more developed than the other.:evil:
Biker

LOL.... "the twins"... that's what I call my dual Beretta setup. :D

wheelgunslinger

January 21, 2006, 09:02 AM

I say that we let anyone who wants to join that mess in Iraq willingly go and choose their MOS without any shell game or BS at the MEPS with their paperwork.

Better a dedicated fighting force than a disgruntled one, if we have to be involved in this fuster cluck, that is.

Obviously, ARMY press releases are just so much spin. You can't rely on the gubment™ to tell you the truth, but you can rely on them to tell you what they think you need to hear. These are recruiters talking here.

armoredman

January 21, 2006, 12:40 PM

Wow, I can go back in the military, 20 years after I went to boot camp the first time? Gee. My question is, if this is the enlistment age, is this also the concription age, if the draft is reinstituted?

MinScout

January 21, 2006, 07:56 PM

I'd heard on the radio that they had raised the age to 42. In which case I could still enlist. I'm in pretty good shape yet, but I don't think I could tolerate having some 25 year old drill sgt getting in my face at this point in my life. I'd probably clock him.

telomerase

January 21, 2006, 07:59 PM

When I saw the title, I thought you meant they were raising the minimum age. Guess they'll still be depending mostly on the young and clueless.

Art Eatman

January 21, 2006, 09:09 PM

I ain't goin' unless they got Ensure Plus in the messhall.

Alex45ACP, with ten guys supporting to one guy fighting, there are philosophical objections to the Draft, but no real physical ones.

I dunno. I just figure as good as this country's system has made it for all of us, putting a couple of years back into it ain't no big deal. I did four years, four months and nine days--not that I was counting--and it wasn't all that such-a-much. Danged near wound up in Vietnam before it quit being French Indo-China, for that matter...

Art

palerider1

January 21, 2006, 09:33 PM

did they really make the new enlistment age 42????????????????????????

Hobie

January 21, 2006, 09:51 PM

i went to join the national guard at 37 and they said i was too old, then they moved the age to 39, but i am 41 now,,,,,,,,,ohh well guess it wasnt in the cards. they should have something for us older guys and gals relating to homeland security reserves or something.........where we can serve under the military in our community. whats everyone els think about that??????
New York Guard (http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/nyg/nyg.html).

Lone_Gunman

January 21, 2006, 10:02 PM

If you are 40 years old, and your best prospect is enlisting in the Army, you really should have tried a little harder.

palerider1

January 21, 2006, 10:03 PM

what is the new york guard? never heard of them. are they like the national guard?

palerider1

January 21, 2006, 10:04 PM

If you are 40 years old, and your best prospect is enlisting in the Army, you really should have tried a little harder.

what is that supposed to mean? i own my own business, i'm in the local fire dept too. just wanted to do a little more for my country. so please explain what your quote meant.

cowboybobb693

January 21, 2006, 10:24 PM

Palerider.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that was not only a shot at you, but at the rest of us that have made either the Active Services or Reserve services a part of our lives.
I also believe that the person that made this statement should apoligize very quickly, lest he insult those of us that are in the Military and start a VERY NASTY flame war.
Get the polite hint (Lonegunman) Bubba????:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

palerider1

January 21, 2006, 10:33 PM

Palerider.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that was not only a shot at you, but at the rest of us that have made either the Active Services or Reserve services a part of our lives.
I also believe that the person that made this statement should apoligize very quickly, lest he insult those of us that are in the Military and start a VERY NASTY flame war.
Get the polite hint (Lonegunman) Bubba????:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

i agree,
i make a great living for my family and my venture in the new york guard certainly would not be monitary. i have supported my community and my country and just wanted to know more about the reserves. lonegunman i am not angry with you but please come out and explain yourself. if your an NRA life member then i'm sure you have the balls to explain what you said.

Lone_Gunman

January 21, 2006, 10:55 PM

Yea I will explain. My comments were with respect to 40 yr olds enlisting in the active duty military. I am not talking about National Guard. If you want to join the Guard, thats a different issue entirely. But if for example, you own your own business, wouldn't it be a tad hard to enlist as a private, serve for a few years, and come back and still have your business in tact?

My point is, if you are 40 yrs of age and don't have a better prospect than joining the military as an E-1, what have you been doing all this time?

Its an entirely different prospect if you are enlisting at 18.

Its also entirely different if you are a 40 yr old bringing some particular skill to the Army, and therefor starting at a higher position.

So, do ya'll still want to flame me?

Biker

January 21, 2006, 11:02 PM

Yea I will explain. My comments were with respect to 40 yr olds enlisting in the active duty military. I am not talking about National Guard. If you want to join the Guard, thats a different issue entirely. But if for example, you own your own business, wouldn't it be a tad hard to enlist as a private, serve for a few years, and come back and still have your business in tact?

My point is, if you are 40 yrs of age and don't have a better prospect than joining the military as an E-1, what have you been doing all this time?

Its an entirely different prospect if you are 18.
Could it be that some people sign up for more than personal gain? Possibly?
Biker

palerider1

January 21, 2006, 11:05 PM

Yea I will explain. My comments were with respect to 40 yr olds enlisting in the active duty military. I am not talking about National Guard. If you want to join the Guard, thats a different issue entirely. But if for example, you own your own business, wouldn't it be a tad hard to enlist as a private, serve for a few years, and come back and still have your business in tact?

My point is, if you are 40 yrs of age and don't have a better prospect than joining the military as an E-1, what have you been doing all this time?

Its an entirely different prospect if you are enlisting at 18.

Its also entirely different if you are a 40 yr old bringing some particular skill to the Army, and therefor starting at a higher position.

So, do ya'll still want to flame me?
mayby i want to join as an e-1. i'm financially secure and want to serve my country. i did not appreciate your comments, although i respect your right to make them. i certainly dont have a problem following orders, even if its from a 20 year old as long as he is qualified to give them.

Lone_Gunman

January 21, 2006, 11:05 PM

Could it be that some people sign up for more than personal gain? Possibly?

Yea, its possible. How many 40 yr olds do you know with a house, family, job, etc are going to sign up for a tour in Iraq? I don't mean to be pessimistic, but do you really think they are going to get a lot more people by raising the age?

If someone is really so patriotic to do that, then go for it. It is an admirable thing. But if the government is hoping to keep their enlistment numbers by relying on the few people in the position to do that, I don't think it is going to work.

By age 40, most people have some skill that the Army would find usable, and potentially start them higher than E1. If someone really is 40 yrs old, and has developed no usable skill that would allow them to start higher than E1, then what has that person been doing? That is a clarification of my original statement.

Exposure

January 21, 2006, 11:08 PM

If you are 40 years old, and your best prospect is enlisting in the Army, you really should have tried a little harder.

Not everyone enlists simply because of the "prospects" offered by military service, ass.

Alex45ACP

January 21, 2006, 11:15 PM

I dunno. I just figure as good as this country's system has made it for all of us, putting a couple of years back into it ain't no big deal.Art

True, but there's a bit of a difference between giving your time willingly and having it stolen from you at gunpoint.

palerider1

January 21, 2006, 11:20 PM

Yea, its possible. How many 40 yr olds do you know with a house, family, job, etc are going to sign up for a tour in Iraq? I don't mean to be pessimistic, but do you really think they are going to get a lot more people by raising the age?

If someone is really so patriotic to do that, then go for it. It is an admirable thing. But if the government is hoping to keep their enlistment numbers by relying on the few people in the position to do that, I don't think it is going to work.

By age 40, most people have some skill that the Army would find usable, and potentially start them higher than E1. If someone really is 40 yrs old, and has developed no usable skill that would allow them to start higher than E1, then what has that person been doing? That is a clarification of my original statement.

that is no clarification at all. read your posts. nobody but you said anything about E-1. i would serve under this country at 80 as a minus e-0....you attacked my post and i would appreciate an apology please, and an admission that you were wrong. if you are an NRA life member you should realize this and have the balls to do it, please.:) people like myself and others are willing to put our "lives" on the line for what you pay "dues" to do. so suck it up and please admit that you made a mistake about what you said.:)

xd45gaper

January 21, 2006, 11:27 PM

I worked with a guy that was 39 in the Navy and couldnt make it past E3 took the exam the max number of times so they kicked him out. they pay him for it though. makes like 38k a year from Unlce Sam doing NOTHING. nice eh

edit* oh yeah back to my point. the military wants younger people so they can mold them. i dont know how many people ive worked with that joined the Service later on in life and are already how you would say "set" in there ways. they generally dont take orders that well espicaly from the younger guys that are higher rank lol.

if they do anything they should lower the age you can join. right now you can join at 17 now but you have to have a waiver from your parents saying you can go in. i dont see how raising the age limit is going to help unless they are recuriting a bunch of guys with degrees to be officers because chances are they are going to come in under E3 and an E3 makes about 24k a year. now i dont know but im pretty sure most people that are the age 35-40 have a job that proably nets them more than 24k a year. (benefits from the military is the only thing i could see.) granted they give you a 40k sign on bonus but they dont tell you how that works. you join but what they fail to tell you is that they only give you 20k up front then tax that 28% then every year after that you get a portion of the other 20k on the anniversary of your enlistment date.

but hey if you want to serve your country its your god given right to do so. there is alot of pride that comes out of it. and you also get alot of benefits being a active duty or a veteran.

(if you die in combat or a combat zone your family gets a year of not paying taxes.)

palerider1

January 21, 2006, 11:28 PM

If you are 40 years old, and your best prospect is enlisting in the Army, you really should have tried a little harder.

will the lone gunman please explain this post,,,,,,,,,dont twist the truth or any other posts,,,,,,,,,,,,,just explain this statement,,,,,,,,,or appologize, please:) you will be forgiven

Working Man

January 21, 2006, 11:38 PM

Yea, its possible. How many 40 yr olds do you know with a house, family, job, etc are going to sign up for a tour in Iraq? I don't mean to be pessimistic, but do you really think they are going to get a lot more people by raising the age?

If someone is really so patriotic to do that, then go for it. It is an admirable thing. But if the government is hoping to keep their enlistment numbers by relying on the few people in the position to do that, I don't think it is going to work.

By age 40, most people have some skill that the Army would find usable, and potentially start them higher than E1. If someone really is 40 yrs old, and has developed no usable skill that would allow them to start higher than E1, then what has that person been doing? That is a clarification of my original statement.

Thinking about some of the people I have worked with I can certainly see it
happening for a variety of reasons. I know a few guys divorced, no or grown
kids (off to collage anyway), and not exactly ecstatic about what they are
doing that want a change in their lives. Maybe for excitement, maybe for
escape, or maybe for a whole new path in life.

There is also some that had thought about serving, got married young, had
kids young and now feel free (money put away, wife has good job, kids
grown/older) to follow that little voice that's been nagging them all this time.

Change can be a very appealing thing... people who have been doing the
same thing for 15 to 20 years may want to spread their wings a little or start
over with a whole new life. Hell guys and gals in that age range are getting
laid off around me left and right too. This could be a whole new experience
for them or a return to something familiar.

At any rate I think there are definitely positive things about that age range
choosing to serve... as it has been said before, they probably have a better
understanding of what their in for and still choose to serve. That's a big + in
my mind.

carebear

January 21, 2006, 11:56 PM

Hell, I went to Boot at 20 back in '91 leaving a job that made me close to $40K a year just because I was bored with college and wanted to challenge myself. I did go Reserve cause I had other things going on at home but, so what, I'm a friggin' Marine now, cause I wanted it, not needed some kind of leg up.

Guy in my Infantry School class was 24 or 25 and left an $80K a year stock trading job for the same reason. Had a guy in Boot (late 20's) who was a Lt. in the Army, got out and had a business career, and then missed the life, when he came back into the Service he said he'd rather be enlisted in the Corps then an officer in Big Green again. Obviously it wasn't about what the military could do financially for any of us.

I've been out a little over a year and I miss it some. I'm toying with finishing my 20 in the Guard.

I'd say a guy who is 40, especially if he's single and has made his nut already, would be a prime candidate to join up and pay a little back for the opportunity his country helped give him to get that way or just learn a little more about himself.

Lone_Gunman

January 22, 2006, 05:25 PM

I am willing to explain, if people will allow the discussion to remain civil, which to be honest, it has not, since someone called me an ass.

I said:

If you are 40 years old, and your best prospect is enlisting in the Army, you really should have tried a little harder.

This statement is apparently very offensive to some. If you are offended by it, then I apologize, but that does not mean I disagree with my statement. I will attempt to elaborate one more time:

There are four types of 40 yr olds I can think of who would be willing to join the Army (and I realize they are generalizations, but will probably cover most 40 yr old volunteers. Certainly their would be exceptions):

1. The Patriot. This is someone who wants to serve their country. They give up their civilian life, and join the military. I think there are relatively few people out their who could do this, even if they wanted to. By age 40 most people have families to raise, mortgages to pay, etc. They would certainly make more money in the civilian world, but their sense of duty compels them to serve. As I said before, if this is your motivation, that is admirable. The fact that they start off as an E-1 is ok with them, because their motivation is patriotic. I do not think the Army will meet its recruitment goals by counting on large numbers of these people to join. My comments to do not apply to this person.

2. The Technician. This is someone with a useful skill, such as engineer, nurse, whatever. He has a useful skill, and when he joins the Army starts off as something higher than E-1. Motivation is patriotic, but he is not really giving up his whole lifestyle, since he will have a status similar to what he had in the civilian world, though probably less salary. I don't believe that raising the age of recruitment to 40 is likely to affect recruitment of these people, as many of the technical jobs in the military already have had the age requirements waived or extended. My comments do not apply to this person.

3. The Challenger. This is someone who is bored with their current job or life, and wants a change. He is joining mainly for personal reasons, not so much for patriotism as the need to do something more exciting. He doesn't mind taking a pay cut, and change in his life situation for the opportunity to have adventure. I think there are relatively few of these people, and my comments do not apply to them.

4. The Flunkie. This is the person who has no usable skill. He's been flipping burgers at McDonalds since he got out of high school, got fired last night, and has heard the Army will now take him even though he turned 40. This is the person I think will most likely be recruited by the Army with their new age criterial. His best job offer is to become a private in the Army. This is the person to whom my original quote refers. I don't think our Army is any better off if he joins. If your best job offer is to join the military at age 40, then it would seem you have wasted about 20 yrs.

I realize joining the military is more than a paycheck. If you are 40, and you are doing it just for the money, then you are to whom I am referring. No one else has reason to be insulted by what I have said.

carebear

January 22, 2006, 05:37 PM

I am willing to explain, if people will allow the discussion to remain civil, which to be honest, it has not, since someone called me an ass.

Oh, I think we realized what you meant, I just massively disagree on your assumption about the proportions. The 40 year old loser isn't going to sign up at all. If they were ever going to join the Army, it would have been when they were a 25 year old loser. There's no comparative benefit to do all that work for the same pay and a harsher, riskier life at 40.

The only guys motivated enough to join at 40 are going to be the successful types, I'll put money on it (though I'm not sure how we'd tell).

Also, as you know, anyone with college is coming in at E-2 or -3 and a successful business leader who is a quick study is gonna be an NCO posthaste.

Lone_Gunman

January 22, 2006, 05:42 PM

I will gladly state that my proportions are totally my opinion, and could be wrong.

However, I wonder why the Army had the cut off age set at 35 (or whatever it was). Was it because they didnt think there were 40 yr olds capable of meeting the physical demands of boot camp, or because they thought they would pick up a bunch of late-30s losers?

carebear

January 22, 2006, 05:53 PM

I'd guess physical reasons and medical care reasons (fragile old hips) and hitting mandatory retirement before they get their pound of flesh.

Plus, they had to pick a number for convenience and 35 probably seemed like it would exclude more unsuitable types prior to doing the indoc. Now, with better aging going on and a need for more bodies, might be time to widen the net again. I can't believe they aren't also reacting politically to a perceived express desire by older guys to get into the fight.

cowboybobb693

January 22, 2006, 06:35 PM

I will gladly state that my proportions are totally my opinion, and could be wrong.

However, I wonder why the Army had the cut off age set at 35 (or whatever it was). Was it because they didnt think there were 40 yr olds capable of meeting the physical demands of boot camp, or because they thought they would pick up a bunch of late-30s losers?

let me clarify.
The FEDERAL Govt. had the maximum age set because you would have needed to perform 20 years of active service prior to reaching mandatory retirement age. They have now modified the retirement age and older folks can now join the Armed Forces. It just took the Military Services a number of years to get that idea passed to JCS and other folks.
As far as a 40 year old making it through basic training I believe that quite a few of us could, as a matter of fact I made it through Special Forces training at 41, of course I was prior service as a USAF Pararescueman and was in pretty good shape. Given that we now have folks out there that run marathons at age 65 attests to the fact that we as a society are in better shape than ever before.

carebear

January 22, 2006, 06:44 PM

All I know is that as a former Marine I don't have to do any other service's Basic if I go back in.

I did it right the first time. :evil:

Ezekiel

January 22, 2006, 07:40 PM

If you are 40 years old, and your best prospect is enlisting in the Army, you really should have tried a little harder.

I'll be the one: I wholeheartedly agree. If -- at forty years of age -- your best prospect is as an Army E-1, you've spent 22 years screwing up.

Quite simply, if your twenty-two years of civilian life have not given you any education, skills, knowledge or trade that matters beyond the initial enlisted rating, then you should have tried harder.

That's fact. I don't understand why anyone is upset. Are folks a little "touchy" on this issue? Why?

U.S.SFC_RET

January 22, 2006, 07:46 PM

Yes the Army is hurting for personnel so they turn to the 40 year old. The Army being the biggest service of them all will feel the pinch for personnel first not to mention the nature of the assignments that come along with it. During peace time the Army is usually the first to cut back on personnel as well. If a guy wants to join the Army at 40 he better be ready to take orders from someone who's 20 and up and if he or she has a problem with it will have a most difficult time adjusting to it. The biggest challenge they face is taking decisions from much younger leaders who most probable won't listen to the (wisdom of the ages). The next problem is they will get lumped together with 18 and 19 year old privates that he or she will not have anything in common with. This new soldier will be faced with a few setbacks. As for him talking to someone his age chances are if he does it will probable be fraternization with the higher ranks, ie Senior Noncommissioned Officer or Officer. The Army is not a bed of roses for a 40 year old private.

Ezekiel

January 22, 2006, 07:49 PM

Are there any allowances for 40-year old Pvt.'s with skills? As an example, a 40-year old with a Master's verses a 40-year old with a GED?

I think that is the root of the recent line of questioning, and I am "curious."

carebear

January 22, 2006, 07:55 PM

Are there any allowances for 40-year old Pvt.'s with skills? As an example, a 40-year old with a Master's verses a 40-year old with a GED?

I think that is the root of the recent line of questioning, and I am "curious."

I had a few years of college and, because of it went in picking up E-2 at Boot graduation. Which meant I picked up E-3 (the last time in rank/service promotion in the Marines) 6 months later after graduating from SOI and checking into my unit.

Promotions to E-4 and above require cutting scores but can be meritorious as well. Assuming the 40 yr. old is a good student of their profession and learned a little bit about leadership over their life, they should be well placed to pick up rank pretty quick at their commander's discretion.

KriegHund

January 22, 2006, 07:59 PM

If your 40 and you can pass the physical and mental requirements, i consider it a good thing.

U.S.SFC_RET

January 22, 2006, 08:01 PM

Are there any allowances for 40-year old Pvt.'s with skills? As an example, a 40-year old with a Master's verses a 40-year old with a GED?

I think that is the root of the recent line of questioning, and I am "curious."
If it is a Master's degree You might want to check with a recruiter and see if he can get you in a specialized field maybe even an Officer's branch and that would be a heck of a sight better than enlisted. I had a high school football coach and a dental technician (civilian careerists) work for me as mechanics in the Army. I've known more than a couple of people w/master degrees in the Army but 99 percent of the time their degree is not being used. Coming in the Army with a degree can get you promoted faster through the Noncommissioned Officer Ranks
if you want to make the Army a career.

Ezekiel

January 22, 2006, 08:02 PM

If your 40 and you can pass the physical and mental requirements, i consider it a good thing.

That's certainly another way to look at things. :)

xd45gaper

January 22, 2006, 08:05 PM

just join the navy ;) i went E1-E5 in 4 years

if you had a degree i would recomend going in as an officer. pay for an E1 is with less than 2 years is like 10k a year. pay for an O1 is more like 45k+ a year. an O1 makes as much as an E7.

it really doesnt matter if you have a degree or not and you join as an enlisted person. you might get E2 or E3 yay..... it all goes by your asvab scores. if you score good you can get a good job. but the best thing about the military is an E3 that works on nueclear powerplants gets the same base pay as an E3 that cleans the crapper.

Lone_Gunman

January 22, 2006, 08:11 PM

I'll be the one: I wholeheartedly agree. If -- at forty years of age -- your best prospect is as an Army E-1, you've spent 22 years screwing up.

At least one person understands my point!

Stevie-Ray

January 22, 2006, 08:29 PM

I went to an Air Force recruiter many moons ago. Told him I was interested in becoming a Jet engine mechanic. "Wonderful field," he says, "But we need fighter pilots. Do you have any aspirations to be a fighter pilot?"

I said sure, doesn't everybody? After he heard my age, he said I was too old to start the training. It was the first time I had ever heard that. It wouldn't be the last. I was 24 at the time. 25 years later I'm now getting all the "old" jokes. It's not much fun.

God bless our troops.

.45&TKD

January 22, 2006, 08:29 PM

Old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill.

Ditto.

Maybe I'm vain, or delusional, but at almost 47 years old, I still think I can take most 20 year old's.

Basura Blanca

January 22, 2006, 08:36 PM

At least one person understands my point!

I got it.
I don't think that you were claiming that this was universally applicable to any and all 40 year-old army applicants.

I think the point that is getting missed here is that this change of policy is very telling. Someone said that this may be necessary to help the U.S. remain free in the coming years, but rhetoric aside, I think that falls out of line with what the current administration is actually saying.

If we're to believe that the war in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is going so well, and that a solution is just around the corner so to speak, then it seems out of step to say that increased military enlistment (by any means) is necessary to cement our future freedoms. As such, that position assumes quite a bit, but the reality doesn't seem to match with it all that well.

U.S.SFC_RET

January 22, 2006, 08:54 PM

The current administration won't send out a red flag to the general public about just how bad the Army really needs people ask any U.S. Army Recruiter. They press them hard, too hard in some cases to reach their recruitment goals. I have had recruiters tell me that they will take any assignment anywhere just to get out of recruiting. What the admninistration sings is a different song altogether. That is life in the services, it's not all glory. Recruiter go from hero to zero frequently.

280PLUS

January 22, 2006, 10:01 PM

I've only read about half the thread but I wanted to interject. A couple of old vets and myself (48) were talking about joining at our age and the point one of them brought up was that the older you get, the harder it is to perform on minimal sleep. And that's pretty much what the military was about when I was in. (USN) Lots of work, little sleep. I suspect it hasn't changed much. So before all you 40 YOs go and sign up, think hard about that one. Do you find yourself liking sleep a little more these days? ;)

xd45gaper

January 22, 2006, 10:40 PM

280+ go threw navy bootcamp now. lol you get a full 8 hours every day! 9 hours on sunday.!

we only got like 6 hours during the week and 7 hours on sunday! im sure its changed alot since you where in! i find 6 hours of sleep is optimal though even though normally during the week i only get 4-5 hours every night!

CAnnoneer

January 23, 2006, 03:26 AM

Master's make officers? What does a PhD start at?

chaim

January 23, 2006, 05:05 AM

All I know is that as a former Marine I don't have to do any other service's Basic if I go back in.

I did it right the first time

Back in 1989 one of the guys I went through Army basic with was a former Marine. Maybe things have changed (in fact, I know they have, any prior service- Army, Navy, AF, Marines, CG- go through the Warrior Transition Course now, not BCT) but back then being a former Marine got you no more than having been in any other service (they had more rank than those of us with no prior service).

Are there any allowances for 40-year old Pvt.'s with skills? As an example, a 40-year old with a Master's verses a 40-year old with a GED?
I've been looking into the possibility of going back into the Reserves or Guard (though I have a lot of weight to lose and I really need to boost my strength and stamina first). The Army does give extra rank if you enlist with either a skill they need or college.

With 30 college credits you go in as an E2 not an E1. With 60 you start as an E3 (Private First Class). With a BA or higher you start as an E4 (Specialist). You can't start higher then E4 on just education if you enlist. Of course, if you qualify you can always try to become an officer if you have a degree, and people professional degrees that are MAs or equivelent which are related to their military job start as O2 (1st LT) and if the job related degree is a doctorate they can start as O3 (Captain).

For experience in areas the Army needs and/or you join in a job comparable to your civilian experience (say you are a cop and go in as an MP) they will give a boost in rank. I don't know what the limit is however.

Hmm, anyone in the know that can tell me- with a 4 year degree in the same field I'd go into (my degree is psychology, I'd try to go back as a 63X, Mental Health Specialist) AND my current job is in the field (I'm a "Mental Health Worker" at a psychiatric hospital) AND by the time I'm in shape to go I will have a few graduate school credits in the field (I will hopefully be in a counseling masters program), would I be able to start higher than E4?

280PLUS

January 23, 2006, 08:27 AM

280+ go threw navy bootcamp now. I'll pass... :D

I'll never forget the first day of BC. Got in from delayed flights at ~0400. 0500 they're tossing garbage cans down the barracks. I'm thinking, "They can't possibly mean ME TOO!! I just got to bed!!" :rolleyes:

xd45gaper

January 23, 2006, 08:29 AM

lol i was thinking the same thing the first day i was there we got like 45 mins of sleep (guess i should have listend when they said to sleep on your sea bags when we where checking in) i was like *** we just went to sleep!

280PLUS

January 23, 2006, 08:39 AM

Yea, it was like they did it on purpose. But how did they manage to cleverly delay those flights? :eek:

:D

xd45gaper

January 23, 2006, 08:48 AM

lol ours was on time but we got there at about 6pm and we where in the check in building till about 4am lol thats when they where like sleep on your sea bags! (its hard to sleep during a time like that espically while sitting indian style stacked like sardines in a hall way lol

I went into the Army in AUG 85. I had 70+ hours of college at the time. So I started out at E-3 (PFC). I made SP4 a year after that. Then I made "the big one" E5, SGT, after a little over two years of service. Despite some efforts to stop me by various lifers. They didn't think someone should make SGT if they were in their first enlistment and were vocal in saying they would never reenlist. But my points were high, my service record was perfect, and there WERE NCO's who thought a promotion should be given when earned. Then I ended up changing my Inactive Reserve status to Active when I got out. So I made E-6 (SSG) after a year in the Reserves. I was starting to become eligible for E-7 when I got out.

But I still think about going back. The local Guard guy has said they could put it in my contract that I come back as an E-6. This unit has already deployed to the big sandbox once. It seems unlikely right now that they will be going back but it IS a possiblity.

If I go back, it will be because I think it is the right thing to do. There is a certain pride of service I felt while wearing the uniform that nothing in civilian life can really equal. You always hear about how old firefighters still want to follow the sirens. Same thing for many prior-service types. I still remember my last act as an Active Duty Army Sergeant in the 25th ID(L), Schofield Barracks. I waited until the end of the day and then walked from J Quad down to Division HQ. I was there when they lowered the flag so that I could salute it one more time in uniform. Still remember the look of the sky and the feel of the moment. Maybe some people have never experienced something like that but it is still real.

Gregg

U.S.SFC_RET

January 24, 2006, 12:09 AM

I remember when I reentered active service and was asked why did you come back into the Army? My reply was the I left the Army but the Army never left me.

chaim

January 24, 2006, 02:43 AM

63X is a mechanic and has nothing to do with Psychology
Yup, 63... seem to pretty much all be mechanics. I meant 68X which seems to be the current designation for the MOS "Mental Health Specialist" (http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=160).:o

phoglund

January 24, 2006, 03:37 AM

I've been drawn by the call of the military as well. I'd rather somebody who has lived a bit more life have to risk it for our country. I am prior service with a medical discharge for something I haven't had any problems with since discharge. I have two bachelor degrees and am about 3 months away from taking a black belt test in Taekwondo so would rate my skill set and physical fitness adequate. I know I'm in better shape than the day I went to boot camp the first time! At 44 and with the medical I doubt they would take me anyway. I'd also have a hard time keeping the family bills paid.

palerider1

January 24, 2006, 05:29 AM

If you are 40 years old, and your best prospect is enlisting in the Army, you really should have tried a little harder.

this statement opened up a debate between myself and the lone gunman. i get kinda sparky this time of year with cabin fever and so forth so if the lone gunman thought i was a little harsh in our debate i publicly appologize. yes i am sorry if you felt i was rude or disrespectful, sincerely apologetic lone gunman.:)

If you enjoyed reading about "US Army Raises Enlistment Age" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!